Small cap on immigration; Leftards go mad.

[Infinite Chaos]

Well it aint. Since I can read Swedish then I can confirm it is what he is claiming.. however --

Haha! Brilliant! Thanks Pete, now I can see why he's refusing to post any links to back his argument up as they won't stand up to any scrutiny.

 

[Andalublue]

Haha! Brilliant! Thanks Pete, now I can see why he's refusing to post any links to back his argument up as they won't stand up to any scrutiny.

Ladies, Gentlemen, I think we can conclude that the troll's argument is deader than a Norwegian Blue parrot. Incidentally, has anyone noticed that RoP has been strangely quiet since Camlon began "contributing"? Not a peep since page 2. Makes you think, doesn't it?

 

[Lancastrian]

When can we leave the EU and govern ourselves? I'm a member of UKIP and it's the only mainstream British political party that supports leaving the EU without morphing into far-left racism.

 

[Camlon]

No, “probable” means he has no proof either way and is making a guess.


That’s the worst case of reasoning I’ve ever seen on this forum. You’re trying to claim that only Eastern Europeans, Swedes and Germans are productive migrants? That every other immigrant group is negative / unproductive? No wonder Djoop thanked your post!

No it doesn't. Probable doesn't mean he has no proof. It means that the uncertainties are too small to determine if it's either for or against. But some groups are definitely contributing, for instance Europeans from western countries and eastern europeans. Hence, if they are contributing and you are supposed to end up approximatly zero, then some groups are not contributing. It's simple logic!

What does Obama have to do with this?

Because Obama didn't cite papers when he argued. Is all of Obamas arguments baseless? Maybe you see that you do not need to cite papers to argue in a debate.

You didn’t give any examples! You claimed that 1) there are tons of muslim immigrants (they are a small proportion of immigration into the UK) 2) that they are uneducated and make no contribution (where’s the proof?)

I gave several. For instance, I gave one about health care. A lot of the immigration is muslim immigrants. Remember that the immigrant population in the UK is around 10% and muslims is 4% of them. And I never said that they are all uneducated, but a lot of them are.

Uneducated non-EU migrants are not allowed in! I’ll say again – we now have a points system. Have had for two years.

So how did they get in. Also don't fool me that the system is changed so that no one is getting through. They can still get through family reunion and as asylum seekers. Also, do you agree that the previous politics under Labour was stupid?

An example poll would help. Here – I’ll do your work for you – Telegraph Article

Well for starters – Jews have had Beth Din courts in the US and UK for 300 years plus – they are little different from what the Muslims are asking for. They have not asked for their courts to allow flogging or other things the hard right press have attributed to them. If it’s OK for Jews, why isn’t it OK for Arabs?

I read you’re from New Zealand – have you protested about Beth Din courts for Jews in New Zealand yet? If not, why not?

There is a huge difference between having sharia courts, which UK allready have. And having sharia law in parts of Britain. That means everyone have to follow it and that British law are put to the side. Do beth Din courts in NZ put the law to the side. I don't think so.

No, “basic knowledge” does not suffice – you are merely posting your opinions.

It's basic knowledge. If yo don't know it, then I suggest you educate yourself.

Where (for the umpteenth time) have “the left” been upset? Why is it so hard to show us how upset / where they have been upset and what form their “upset” has been?

I can’t believe how hard it is to get you to post proof of something you’re so convinced has happened!

Actually, I don't really care about that debate. I rather want to debate if there should be more restrictions on how many uneducated immigrants UK will accept from outside EU.

So… if the figures for 1950 to 2000 put Sweden at the top of the league at 3 times the rate of other European countries and you now claim that from 2000 onwards Iraqis are the perpetrators and rape in Sweden is still 3 times higher in the same period – who did all the raping before the immigrants from Iraq came along?

Peer reviewed Academic source

Oh, and one of the forum requirements is that you post your back up in English. Your excel sheet is in Swedish so it could be a recipe for Swedish meatball consumption by region for all I know.

I think you should be able to know that sexualbrott means sexual assults without knowing Swedish. If it was a huge problem for you, then you could have used a translator, and it would have given you the same answer.

However, PeteEU answer was very self-defeating, because I wasn't accurate. Sweden started taking Iraqi refugees in 2003. That was when the Iraq war started. Also, I never suggested that Swedish people don't rape. I don't like Swedish people very much anyway and feel like they deserve what is coming to them so why would I suggest they don't rape. There is no perfect ethnic group, and given my friends circle, it's clear it's not because of personal reasons. It's because I want a prosperous future, and it won't happend if you replace you population with unproductive people who are often radical as well.

At least Kiwies have some sense in their heads and don't want to walk the same path as UK does. The Danish have allready changed their politics and Norwegians probably will change quite soon as well. However, in Britain and Sweden political correctness seem to be strong. It was clear in this debate that everyone who is against taking uneducated immigrants outside EU, is racist in UK.

 

[Camlon]

Ladies, Gentlemen, I think we can conclude that the troll's argument is deader than a Norwegian Blue parrot. Incidentally, has anyone noticed that RoP has been strangely quiet since Camlon began "contributing"? Not a peep since page 2. Makes you think, doesn't it?

No, we can rather conclude that you are quite arrogant. It's up to the ones reading the thread to decide who is the winner of a debate.

However, I haven't seen very many good arguments from your side. I mean, you put words in my mouth, like "all social ills are because of immigrants" and then said I was racist for having them. Not just once, but several. Also some of your comparisons are just utterly riddiculus, like the one where you compared Sweden rape rate that increased after Sweden took many Iraqi refugees, to some singer in Eurovision. I actually think you are the one here who is making a fool out of yourself.

 

[PeteEU]

However, PeteEU answer was very self-defeating, because I wasn't accurate. Sweden started taking Iraqi refugees in 2003. That was when the Iraq war started. Also, I never suggested that Swedish people don't rape.

Yes they did.. but they also took far more Iraqi refugees before that. You were the one trying to link Iraqi refugees to the rise in rape numbers in Sweden. If you had done your homework then you would have known there was change in how they reported rapes in Sweden in 2005.

I don't like Swedish people very much anyway and feel like they deserve what is coming to them so why would I suggest they don't rape.

LOL the hell you did. Sure you did not say it directly but you linked a rise in rapes in 2000 and onwards with a surge in Iraqi refugees in 2003, despite the actual surge in rapes due to the way they counted rapes .. happened in 2005. As for not liking Swedes... err okay.

There is no perfect ethnic group, and given my friends circle, it's clear it's not because of personal reasons. It's because I want a prosperous future, and it won't happend if you replace you population with unproductive people who are often radical as well.

And what does that have to do with Sweden and Iraqi refugees.. You do know that the Sweden has sent many of them back right? And the US and UK have protested over those sending back. You also do know that Sweden took far far more refugees from Iraq than New Zealand, UK and US COMBINED right?

At least Kiwies have some sense in their heads and don't want to walk the same path as UK does.

Yea it helps being in the middle of no where at the far side of the planet.

The Danish have allready changed their politics and Norwegians probably will change quite soon as well.

Their immigration policies? Yea we did that in the 1990s and onward. So what? It does not have and impact on refugees. The changes in Danish immigration policy was targeted to non EU citizens and to limit their entry into the country on the basis family links. To get into Denmark from outside the EU you need skills and not be a burden on the Danish crown... aka you need a job.

However, in Britain and Sweden political correctness seem to be strong. It was clear in this debate that everyone who is against taking uneducated immigrants outside EU, is racist in UK.

Uneducated immigrants? What you mean.. Pakis and Indians? Kiwi's? As in people from the commonwealth? Should the UK stop having liberal immigration links with its commonwealth?

Or do you mean immigrants from the middle east and Africa? Because sorry to burst your bubble, you cant enter the EU without having skills, so all those you THINK are uneducated immigrants are in fact either refugees or illegals. And that is a whole other story and dimension.

 

[Camlon]

To update a little bit. Sweden took some Iraqi refugees from 2000-2005. However the big numbers came after 2006. In 2003 there was few Iraqi refugees in Sweden, especially since many of them were inside asylum centres waiting for their application to be accepted. It has changed somewhat since then.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

No it doesn't. Probable doesn't mean he has no proof.

If he has proof do you think he would seriously NOT post it? Are you aware of the consequences to an academic of such a way of working?

-- some groups are definitely contributing, for instance Europeans from western countries and eastern europeans.

You're making this up as you go along. Contributing what? We know for definite that Eastern Europeans contributed most to immigration to the UK and most other EU countries once they joined the EU.

-- Hence, if they are contributing and you are supposed to end up approximatly zero, then some groups are not contributing. It's simple logic!

Why should anything approximate zero? How do you know other groups are not contributing?

-- Because Obama didn't cite papers when he argued. Is all of Obamas arguments baseless? Maybe you see that you do not need to cite papers to argue in a debate.

Are you talking about his speeches as POTUS or his speeches in Senate? If the latter, you're wrong.

-- the immigrant population in the UK is around 10% and muslims is 4% of them --

"4%" is tons then?

-- So how did they get in. Also don't fool me that the system is changed so that no one is getting through.

The majority of legal migrants have been stopped and very few can now get in as family or asylum.

-- do you agree that the previous politics under Labour was stupid?

None of the parties of the last 50 years got things right.

-- There is a huge difference between having sharia courts, which UK allready have. And having sharia law in parts of Britain.

There are Sharia courts already? News to me and there's also no sharia law in the UK

-- That means everyone have to follow it and that British law are put to the side. Do beth Din courts in NZ put the law to the side. I don't think so.

This just shows you don't know how Sharia or Beth Din work in your country or anywhere else in the west.

-- It's basic knowledge. If yo don't know it, then I suggest you educate yourself.

If it's "common knowledge" you should easily find links and irrefutable examples. The fact you haven't, despite repeated requests says otherwise.

-- Actually, I don't really care about that debate.

Because neither you nor RoP could find this "left" or "Leftards" that was so upset.

-- I rather want to debate if there should be more restrictions on how many uneducated immigrants UK will accept from outside EU.

That's already been explained. The points system and the new cap clarifies things - the only groups that are unaffected are footballers for our Premier League.

-- I don't like Swedish people very much anyway

Two posts ago, they were one of the three groups you said were the only ones capable of contributing when they immigrated....

-- It was clear in this debate that everyone who is against taking uneducated immigrants outside EU, is racist in UK.

No, but the argument was from an angle of race. There were generalisations in terms of race which is a classic example of racism. Racism isn't as obvious as having a swastika tattooed to your neck or "zieg heiling" whenever you see an ethnic minority it's also making generalisations based on race i.e "they are all uneducated" or "they are all fragrant" or "they all have bigger penises than we do" etc. Racism includes making generalised statements of a whole group from a limited and ignorant understanding of a larger group.

Thus black people can be racist about whites by making generalisations about white people, Maoris can be racist about Australian Aborigines based on generalisations etc etc.

 

[Camlon]

Yes they did.. but they also took far more Iraqi refugees before that. You were the one trying to link Iraqi refugees to the rise in rape numbers in Sweden. If you had done your homework then you would have known there was change in how they reported rapes in Sweden in 2005.

Which would cause a gradual increase from 20 to 60 from 2003 to 2009? If that was true, then the increase should happend in 2005 and then it remains at the same level. Obviously this didn't happen and it was still a massive increase.

LOL the hell you did. Sure you did not say it directly but you linked a rise in rapes in 2000 and onwards with a surge in Iraqi refugees in 2003, despite the actual surge in rapes due to the way they counted rapes .. happened in 2005. As for not liking Swedes... err okay.

So if I put water in a bottle with water, then there was no water there from before. Even though they increased the rape statistics, doesn't mean that Swedish people don't rape. I have no intersert in defending swedish people.

And what does that have to do with Sweden and Iraqi refugees.. You do know that the Sweden has sent many of them back right? And the US and UK have protested over those sending back. You also do know that Sweden took far far more refugees from Iraq than New Zealand, UK and US COMBINED right?

No, they haven't. Here is the number emigrating from Sweden
244, 277, 301, 421, 529, 570, 714, 803, 980, 902
That doesn't even compare to the number immigrating and it hasn't stopped. In 2009 Sweden recieved 9543 iraqi refugees which is a lowest number since 2005.

Yea it helps being in the middle of no where at the far side of the planet.

Still, most kiwies agree that the policies of Europe is policies that will lead to failure.

Their immigration policies? Yea we did that in the 1990s and onward. So what? It does not have and impact on refugees. The changes in Danish immigration policy was targeted to non EU citizens and to limit their entry into the country on the basis family links. To get into Denmark from outside the EU you need skills and not be a burden on the Danish crown... aka you need a job.

That's finally an European country who understand that they can't save the world by letting them immigrate to Europe.

Uneducated immigrants? What you mean.. Pakis and Indians? Kiwi's? As in people from the commonwealth? Should the UK stop having liberal immigration links with its commonwealth?

Or do you mean immigrants from the middle east and Africa? Because sorry to burst your bubble, you cant enter the EU without having skills, so all those you THINK are uneducated immigrants are in fact either refugees or illegals. And that is a whole other story and dimension.

Yes you can. You can enter as a refugee and also as family reunion. What happends in many countries, is that they enter as asylum seekers and then they find a wife in their home country and get all of their relatives to Europe. I think European countries in general should try to limit the amount of asylum seekers coming to their country and restrict family reunion. UK got an extremly radical muslim population and they must have got in somehow.

And yes I think UK should make it harder to immigrate to UK, even from commonwealth countries. Because the polls shown previously show that many immigrants to UK don't assimilate very well. New Zealand has the same law for everyone. It seems to work fine in New Zealand. I'm sure the same law would work in UK as well.

 

[Camlon]

If he has proof do you think he would seriously NOT post it? Are you aware of the consequences to an academic of such a way of working?

I don't know what he has posted, because it was your guy. I was talking about another guy from Denmark.

You're making this up as you go along. Contributing what? We know for definite that Eastern Europeans contributed most to immigration to the UK and most other EU countries once they joined the EU.

Why should anything approximate zero? How do you know other groups are not contributing?

Contributing to the economy and the society. Excactly, hence if he was right then groups such as asylum seekers and their relatives and wifes should not be contributing, or else the math doesn't add up.

Why should it be zero, because he said, probably negative. Hence it can't be very much better than zero net effect if he was right. Now I'm going to give you a challange. Try to turn this to negative without subtracting
10 + 20
Not possible, right? It's not possible that every single group is contributing, because then it would be a clear positive effect.

Are you talking about his speeches as POTUS or his speeches in Senate? If the latter, you're wrong.

No, I'm talking about the debates with John McCain. Neither of them use papers. They don't debate in this way "in ths report it says that public health care cost less", "no, but in this report it says that private health care cost less" "but that report is less thrustworthy because ..."

The majority of legal migrants have been stopped and very few can now get in as family or asylum.

If that is true, then that is a good thing, but I don't believe you.

There are Sharia courts already? News to me and there's also no sharia law in the UK

his just shows you don't know how Sharia or Beth Din work in your country or anywhere else in the west.

Yes, and no one said there was Sharia in Britain. Seriously!

Also, no Beth Din doesn't override NZ law. Beth Din won't protect you if you rape someone and Beth Din doesn't allow you to kill homosexuals or infadels.

If it's "common knowledge" you should easily find links and irrefutable examples. The fact you haven't, despite repeated requests says otherwise.

Because it's basic knowledge. I can give you som facts if you promise to tell me that you don't know basic knowledge.

That's already been explained. The points system and the new cap clarifies things - the only groups that are unaffected are footballers for our Premier League.

So the system is moving forward. However it's obvious that some people here don't approve of the changes.

Two posts ago, they were one of the three groups you said were the only ones capable of contributing when they immigrated....

Because I'm not a liar. Swedish immigrants are producitve and benefit the host country.

No, but the argument was from an angle of race. There were generalisations in terms of race which is a classic example of racism. Racism isn't as obvious as having a swastika tattooed to your neck or "zieg heiling" whenever you see an ethnic minority it's also making generalisations based on race i.e "they are all uneducated" or "they are all fragrant" or "they all have bigger penises than we do" etc. Racism includes making generalised statements of a whole group from a limited and ignorant understanding of a larger group.

Well, no one has said that any ethnic group is all uneducated. Racism is btw the belief that some groups are superior to others. It's not making generalizations or some bull****. Then everyone would be racist. But it's a nice definition to make sure that political correctness stays strong.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

....it's also making generalisations based on race i.e "they are all uneducated" or "they are all fragrant" or "they all have bigger penises than we do" etc.

It's that kind of thing which kept the Leftit insanity mill going since the 1980s. Saying good things now, even light-heartedly, is 'waysist', according to the ever-expanding list of fabricated 'reasons'. By that logic, Jeremy Clarkson's description of the 'centrally heated and air-conditioned Americans' isn't far from Nazism now either!



Still, you can turn the leftard table here.


Joseph Harker, author of the 'seminal' pulp screed Of Course All White People Are Racist can be put in the stocks too! And Jo Brand, who claimed it's impossible to be racist towards whites ('just prejuduced')!

And with these insane Marxist creatures unveiling crackpot 'inventions' to scan peoples' brains for latent 'racism', anything to show them up for the frauds, mad dummy 'scientists' and quackdoctors they are is all for the good!

And let's not forget that the Leftist Western Establishments take 'equality' to such batty lengths that they end up denigrating their own kind - just to preserve a tilted equilibrium which they believe is level:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/65404-lunatics-new-labour-state-4.html#post1058552657






Even BABIES can be racist, according to the walking HIV viruses of the PC lobby: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-racism-Government-funded-group-claims.html




'Course, you can never in a million years expect the soul-destroying, treacherous Left to dump its hypocrisy. But then if it did, we wouldn't have the fun of seeing Communist Party marchers at anti-extremist rallies understanding not one shred of irony!

 

[Infinite Chaos]

It's that kind of thing which kept the Leftit insanity mill going since the 1980s. Saying good things now, even light-heartedly, is 'waysist', according to the ever-expanding list of fabricated 'reasons'. By that logic, Jeremy Clarkson's description of the 'centrally heated and air-conditioned Americans' isn't far from Nazism now either!

Didn't think you could control your urges or your word and stay away for long.

I'm not interested in your usual pile of unrelated links that allow you to either show threads you've embarrassed yourself or been beaten on so I'll focus on your defence of "waythithm."

As I said earlier in the thread - I have no problem with you being a closet racist (just don't keep trying to pull the wool over our eyes), be open and embrace your true self. Anyhow - onto the matter - Your Jeremy Clarkson comment shows how people do try to cover their tracks with either "he does it so it's OK for me" OR trying to liken simple racism to Nazism. You can have communist racists / left wing racists / Liberal Democrat racists / Tory racists etc. As I said in the previous post, you can equally have black racists.

Racism is nor merely defined by white skin or a swastika tattoo on your body somewhere - it is in a person's attitude and treatment and generalisation of a racial group and applying a thought process how you treat that group.

Thus your comments earlier in the thread were rightly pulled into question.

 

[PeteEU]

Which would cause a gradual increase from 20 to 60 from 2003 to 2009? If that was true, then the increase should happend in 2005 and then it remains at the same level. Obviously this didn't happen and it was still a massive increase.

Okay.. Rapes in Sweden according to your own source.

1992 - 19
1993 - 25
1994 - 21
1995 - 19
1996 - 18
1997 - 19
1998 - 22
1999 - 24
2000 - 23
2001 - 23
2002 - 24
2003 - 29
2004 - 29

Now Sweden changes its statistical methodology.

2005 - 42
2006 - 46
2007 - 52
2008 - 59
2009 - 63

So when they changed the way they reported rapes, the numbers jumped from 29 to 46 and have gradually increased from 46 to 63 per 100.000 population since then. Now you claimed it could be because of the Iraqi refugees. For one these refugees came in 2003 and there was no big jump before 2005. Secondly the refugees were sent home in large numbers in 2008.

So if I put water in a bottle with water, then there was no water there from before. Even though they increased the rape statistics, doesn't mean that Swedish people don't rape. I have no intersert in defending swedish people.

Let me remind you again what you wrote.

-- Of course, swedish people just suddenly started raping 3 times as often, right? BTW: such an increase has never occoured the last 60 year. From 1950 to 2000 it increased from 5 to 20. From 2000 to 2010 it increased from 20 to 60. In the same periode they took many iraqi refugees. I think that is too much of a coindidence. Brå - Brottsförebyggande rådet

You never mention a word about the Swedes. You claim that it is not a coincidence that the rape numbers go up because of the Iraqi refugees. There can be many reasons for rape numbers increased, including the following.. methodology, more women reporting rapes, more convictions, changes in society and so on and so on, and they are all more realistic than blaming it on Iraqi refugees.

No, they haven't. Here is the number emigrating from Sweden
244, 277, 301, 421, 529, 570, 714, 803, 980, 902
That doesn't even compare to the number immigrating and it hasn't stopped. In 2009 Sweden recieved 9543 iraqi refugees which is a lowest number since 2005.

Eh did you even read what I wrote? What you wrote makes no sense in the context.

Still, most kiwies agree that the policies of Europe is policies that will lead to failure.

And you have empirical evidence of this of course? If I look at New Zealand immigration policy I see many positive things, but also many wth moments. 750 refugees max a year? More Kiwi's leaving the country than new immigrants coming in? And lets not forget that New Zealand is in the middle of no where, with sea all around and thousands of miles to cover to get there.. not exactly an easy place to flee too.

That's finally an European country who understand that they can't save the world by letting them immigrate to Europe.

Seriously... The policies vary from European country to European country. The UK and France accept many immigrants from former colonies, the rest of Europe does not. Germany allows immigration from former German areas, Denmark does not. Spain had liberal immigration laws up to 2 years ago, they do not now.

The main problem in Europe is not immigration since over all it is very small.. the problem is illegals, that have been pouring over the borders for years including into Spain and Italy and the lack of action to deal with it.. well until a few years ago.

Yes you can. You can enter as a refugee and also as family reunion. What happends in many countries, is that they enter as asylum seekers and then they find a wife in their home country and get all of their relatives to Europe. I think European countries in general should try to limit the amount of asylum seekers coming to their country and restrict family reunion. UK got an extremly radical muslim population and they must have got in somehow.

That practice was blocked decades ago in most countries. You dont automatically get your wife up to Europe unless you can support her. As for the rest of the family, no way in most countries.

And yes I think UK should make it harder to immigrate to UK, even from commonwealth countries. Because the polls shown previously show that many immigrants to UK don't assimilate very well. New Zealand has the same law for everyone. It seems to work fine in New Zealand. I'm sure the same law would work in UK as well.

Yea New Zealand is a bright light in the world.. accepting 750 refugees per year max, having more Kiwi leave the country than new immigrants coming in, resulting in population decline.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Didn't think you could control your urges or your word and stay away for long.

... As I said earlier in the thread - I have no problem with you being a closet racist (just don't keep trying to pull the wool over our eyes), be open and embrace your true self.

You yourself tried to drag things down to a racial level and made things personal, which is why I stayed away.

And as for the 'closet racism' stuff, don't let's keep the paranoia up, there's a good chap - not to mention the hypocrisy. You're the one who started talking about race as an excuse to call people names. Now there's grown-up, isn't it!


It must be exhausting to live in your looking-glass world, a place where even babies are racist and where some kind of device to look for 'racist impulses' in peoples' heads is necessary! When emotion clouds judgement you get Left Wing 'thinking'.

And if you think Jeremy Clarkson's upbeat description of technologically-advanced, multi-racial America was 'racist', then I rest my case.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

You yourself tried to drag things down to a racial level and made things personal, which is why I stayed away.

Opening post - "Honesty, if the demographic-changing effect of open-door immigration hasn't sorted out the unemployment problems of the 'too white and too lazy' British by now, then it never will."

So who introduced race?

-- And as for the 'closet racism' stuff, don't let's keep the paranoia up, there's a good chap - not to mention the hypocrisy. You're the one who started talking about race as an excuse to call people names. Now there's grown-up, isn't it!

Call people names...

Title of thread "Leftards." Post #17 "(It was about numbers you fool!)"

-- It must be exhausting to live in your looking-glass world, a place where even babies are racist and where some kind of device to look for 'racist impulses' in peoples' heads is necessary! When emotion clouds judgement you get Left Wing 'thinking'.

You do enjoy a good babble don't you?

--And if you think Jeremy Clarkson's upbeat description of technologically-advanced, multi-racial America was 'racist', then I rest my case.

You have reading comprehension errors - I said "Your Jeremy Clarkson comment shows how people do try to cover their tracks with either "he does it so it's OK for me"

Does it say "Jeremy Clarkson is racist?" anywhere?

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Ah, that's better - the back-and-forth of good honest petty bickering.

'Too white and too lazy' is one of those statements which have become part of the background noise of life in a 'liberal' Western nation. Ironic as that's racist, especially by the new expanded definitions too! But you don't get the likes of Joseph Harker or Margaret Hodge hauled over the coals by fellow berks.

Call people names...

Title of thread "Leftards." Post #17 "(It was about numbers you fool!)"

Nice to join in the invalidation parade. Read things like the Communism thread for example to find me belittled in all kinds of ways as well as earlier posts where you tried to do nothing else but paint me as some kind of Nazi National Front racist for speaking on certain issues. It wasn't about race but it was dragged in that overemotional direction so I got off the pot.

(And besides, it's a wonder what kind of people think they can go round ringfencing issues under threat of sanction of at least being called names, then wonder why people are rude about them! Oh well, same people who think it's impossible to be racist against whites I suppose....)

You do enjoy a good babble don't you?

Haven't denied the racist babies junk though, have you!

Does it say "Jeremy Clarkson is racist?" anywhere?

That says so indirectly: "he does it so it's OK for me"

 

[Infinite Chaos]

'Too white and too lazy' is one of those statements which have become part of the background noise of life in a 'liberal' Western nation. Ironic as that's racist, especially by the new expanded definitions too! But you don't get the likes of Joseph Harker or Margaret Hodge hauled over the coals by fellow berks.

So you introduced "race" to the thread then. Thank you.

- Nice to join in the invalidation parade. Read things like the Communism thread for example to find me belittled in all kinds of ways as well as earlier posts where you tried to do nothing else but paint me as some kind of Nazi National Front racist for speaking on certain issues. It wasn't about race but it was dragged in that overemotional direction so I got off the pot.

To be honest, I haven't read the Communism thread, it may surprise you that I only read so many threads. Too much life, too little time.

Anyhow - who called who names IN THIS THREAD first?

-- Haven't denied the racist babies junk though, have you!

Haven't read it, is it relevant? Will it make my life better?

-- That says so indirectly: "he does it so it's OK for me"

Ah, so you like assumptions as a debate method? You know what they say about making "assumptions?"

 

[Camlon]

Okay.. Rapes in Sweden according to your own source.

1992 - 19
1993 - 25
1994 - 21
1995 - 19
1996 - 18
1997 - 19
1998 - 22
1999 - 24
2000 - 23
2001 - 23
2002 - 24
2003 - 29
2004 - 29

Now Sweden changes its statistical methodology.

2005 - 42
2006 - 46
2007 - 52
2008 - 59
2009 - 63

So when they changed the way they reported rapes, the numbers jumped from 29 to 46 and have gradually increased from 46 to 63 per 100.000 population since then. Now you claimed it could be because of the Iraqi refugees. For one these refugees came in 2003 and there was no big jump before 2005. Secondly the refugees were sent home in large numbers in 2008.

True about the numbers, but it is still a significant change.

Actually they came in smaller numbers since 2000. Sweden took Iraqi refugees before the war. Around 5000 per year. Then in 2005 they started taking a lot more, around 12-14000 refugees.

Also, they were not sent back in large numbers. I gave you the numbers last time, but it seems like you misunderstood me. This is the number of Iraqi who emigrate from Sweden. That's nothing compared to the number immigrating.
244, 277, 301, 421, 529, 570, 714, 803, 980, 902

Let me remind you again what you wrote.



You never mention a word about the Swedes. You claim that it is not a coincidence that the rape numbers go up because of the Iraqi refugees. There can be many reasons for rape numbers increased, including the following.. methodology, more women reporting rapes, more convictions, changes in society and so on and so on, and they are all more realistic than blaming it on Iraqi refugees.

But I'm not saying that swedish people don't rape, but yes I think it's too much of a coincendence. They must have affected the rape rate. Although I agree there may be other factors as well.

And you have empirical evidence of this of course? If I look at New Zealand immigration policy I see many positive things, but also many wth moments. 750 refugees max a year? More Kiwi's leaving the country than new immigrants coming in? And lets not forget that New Zealand is in the middle of no where, with sea all around and thousands of miles to cover to get there.. not exactly an easy place to flee too.

That's wonderful! We can't save the world by taking refugees, it won't help to take 1/1000 of Africas population to Europe. The only way to solve the problem is to help them where they are, and they need to help themselves.

Also, NZ has a lot of immigration and has net migration the last years. The ones coming into NZ are educated and they also benefit NZ, unlike many immigrant to Europe. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/longterm/fiscalposition/2006/15.htm
Also NZ got a healthy fertility rate (2.2) so there will certinally not be any population decline. Auckland is going to increase from 1.4 million to 2 million from 2010 to 2030. Europe got much bigger problems than NZ, because many European countries have very low fertility rates, and they have been low for quite a while. This means that even if the fertility rate increases, the ethnic population will still decrease and immigration is not helping, it's making it worse.

Seriously... The policies vary from European country to European country. The UK and France accept many immigrants from former colonies, the rest of Europe does not. Germany allows immigration from former German areas, Denmark does not. Spain had liberal immigration laws up to 2 years ago, they do not now.

The main problem in Europe is not immigration since over all it is very small.. the problem is illegals, that have been pouring over the borders for years including into Spain and Italy and the lack of action to deal with it.. well until a few years ago.

Immigration to UK has been around 500K each year. That's not a small number.

Also, why shouldn't UK be able to handle illegals. UK is an island, and it should be very easy to control the borders. Of course people can stay after a tourist visa, but then UK will have their fingerprints and photo. It should be very easy to kick them out next time they want to visit their home.

That practice was blocked decades ago in most countries. You dont automatically get your wife up to Europe unless you can support her. As for the rest of the family, no way in most countries.

Maybe in UK. In Norway and Sweden it still possible. I know it's common to send a child as an anchor baby. Then when the child gets older, the rest of the family can come through family reunion. Also, it's common to marry severall women so that they all can come through family reunion. Family reunion is one of the most common ways to immigrate to Norway.

But at least something must be wrong with UK immigration policies. UK got currently 2.5 million muslim, they have radical values, they are not educated and do not contribute to the UK society. How did they get in?

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

If Lefties make it their business to go round telling people they're wrong all the time then they should expect reaction. You should be grateful the mods don't allow swearing.

So you introduced "race" to the thread then. Thank you.

'Too white, too lazy' was merely mentioning a ridiculous attitude which was debunked in the opening post as a reason for our troubles. That wasn't a focus, however your talking abut DNA and race, when I was talking about numbers, was.

Haven't read it, is it relevant? Will it make my life better?

Living in denial! How truly leftist!

Anyhow - who called who names IN THIS THREAD first?

You did; well, by leftard criteria anyway. Insinuation of being 'racist' and having a natural home in the National Front is more childish smear than true insult, but that's near enough for the seemingly emotionally unhinged 'liberal'-left. The usual patronising rubbish I should rise above, and usually do.

You know what they say about making "assumptions?"

It means you lack the ability to cover every angle and not make your own assumptions when challenged; thus causing other people to approximate and cover their faces to avoid the raging fleckle in retaliation.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

If Lefties make it their business to go round telling people they're wrong all the time then they should expect reaction. You should be grateful the mods don't allow swearing.

You do know this is supposed to be a "debate" forum? Am I supposed to be afraid that you'll swear at me?

-- 'Too white, too lazy' was merely mentioning a ridiculous attitude which was debunked in the opening post as a reason for our troubles. That wasn't a focus, however your talking abut DNA and race, when I was talking about numbers, was.

You accused me of introducing race - I've shown that it was you. You posted a questionable "debunking" website which I pointed out flaws in and you got upset.

Did you even read his website? Do you even know there's a section therein about "we're all immigrants now" that I was referring to? You DO know you should read your own links in case someone else laughs at rubbish arguments it contains?

-- Living in denial! How truly leftist!

I've been called every shade of the political spectrum except fascist on this forum. Firstly, please answer my question - is the link relevant? You post so many irrelevant links that we have all learned to ignore or skim them when you go into blather mode (big text / lefties are this etc)

You don't win any arguments just by using italics or bigger text.

-- You did; well, by leftard criteria anyway. Insinuation of being 'racist' and having a natural home in the National Front is more childish smear than true insult, but that's near enough for the seemingly emotionally unhinged 'liberal'-left. The usual patronising rubbish I should rise above, and usually do.

So is the thread title mine or yours? Who uses the term "leftards?"

-- It means you lack the ability to cover every angle and not make your own assumptions when challenged; thus causing other people to approximate and cover their faces to avoid the raging fleckle in retaliation.

Nice try, no cigar.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Am I supposed to be afraid that you'll swear at me?

No.

Do you even know there's a section therein about "we're all immigrants now" that I was referring to?

Yes. And it mentions not one word on race or DNA.

Is the link relevant?

Yup. In a country where a PC-blind government of the day had been keen to endose a 'friendly' report slandering AN ENTIRE POLICE FORCE for being 'institutionally racist', then lunatic proclamations over 'racist babies' is more evidence to take leftist screeching and jabber with a lorry-load of salt.

You post so many irrelevant links that we have all learned to ignore or skim them when you go into blather mode..

No wonder you miss the evidence or put your own interpretation on it!

So is the thread title mine or yours?

You're not havin' it, gerroff! People far inferior to you on every level use 'leftard' that I wouldn't worry about it if I were you!

Nice try, no cigar.

I'll try not to cry.

 

[TennesseeRain]

As a newbie, can I just say that I really appreciate it when posters use the word "libtard." It makes determining who should be taken seriously and who should instantly be ignored soooooo much easier. Thanks!

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

In that case you're doing a rather rotten job at the ignoring! Topic title itself is contains the word! *

Pretty surprising, given that ignorance is one of the liberal-left's unassailable party tricks!






___________________________________

* Well, 'leftard'. But why split hairs when facing such a classy example of arrogantly aloof indignance?!

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- Yes. And it mentions not one word on race or DNA

Shall we go round the mulberry bush again? I already said (in my first reply after you tried to excuse the rubbish in that website) that I did.

Countdown to you saying it doesn't mention DNA again........

-- Yup. In a country where a PC-blind government of the day had been keen to endose a 'friendly' report slandering AN ENTIRE POLICE FORCE for being 'institutionally racist', then lunatic proclamations over 'racist babies' is more evidence to take leftist screeching and jabber with a lorry-load of salt.

Are we deflecting now to discuss the Stephen Lawrence case instead of how rubbish your argument has been so far/ Very well, I will look at the babies link.

-- No wonder you miss the evidence or put your own interpretation on it!

Already explained this - you have a strong tendency is many threads to post irrelevant links. I've often given up or lost the will to stay awake when trying to follow the links. I'd much rather you posted pertinent links than a handful of irrelevant ones in future.

-- use 'leftard' that I wouldn't worry about it if I were you! --

It sets the tone of your thread, it switches most posters off from discussing anything with you. Tell me, do you want to discuss / lecture / convert / speak to like minded thinkers?

Try it sometime - post a thread topic and keep the insulting names out / avoid "scum," "leftards" and all the other names and maybe you'll be surprised that people respond more to you and engage. I mean the whole thread and all your responses in it - not just the thread title. Maybe that'll explain whatever responses you are getting in the communism thread.

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

I remember some time ago I was more restrained in my language but would still always be told I was ignorant, bigoted and have my words twisted, etc, so I got more partisan to keep some of the dogs off. I don't see it as much as the words I use more the reason why I use them. I'm willing to engage but all the more often I've found things have been a slanging match anyway.

But alright, I'll have a crack at civility again...

Shall we go round the mulberry bush again? I already said (in my first reply after you tried to excuse the rubbish in that website) that I did.

Countdown to you saying it doesn't mention DNA again........

Mulberry bush time I'm afraid. This is what he said on that bit:

We are a nation of immigrants, therefore we should continue to take immigrants ? The argument that one should continue to do whatever one has done in the past is a favourite amongst the near senile: those who can only repeat, like robots, what they did in the past.

Hong Kong is a nation of immigrants. Three centuries ago it was empty. Then Europeans turned it into a port, and about five million Chinese swarmed in. Presumably this proves further millions should swarm in, with the result that they'd all live in thirty story high blocks of flats instead of the current average of around fifteen stories. And as to Hong Kong residents at ground level, half of them would be going around "piggy-back" on top of the other half, for want of space.

At the opposite extreme, had Hong Kong not been turned into a port and not taken immigrants in large numbers, that would prove it should not be turned into a port in the future, despite being a good natural harbour. Liberal logic is a strange subject.

Also the statement that "we are a nation of immigrants" is certainly misleading if not a lie. Immigration in the centuries prior to WWII was negligible compared to post WWII. Put another way, it is not immigration as such that bothers ninety percent of those who complain about it, but the scale. Thus the statement that "we are a nation of immigrants" is an evasion of the issue. Or in most cases, a deliberate evasion, i.e. a lie.


Race? DNA?

Are we deflecting now to discuss the Stephen Lawrence case instead of how rubbish your argument has been so far/

Now there's validation for you!

Already explained this - you have a strong tendency is many threads to post irrelevant links.

Each link has something to do with what I'm saying. I'm not asking you read them all, just establishing I have background. Indeed, I believe it is you yourself who can say 'Aah, but where's your link?' when none are sometimes forthcoming!

Tell me, do you want to discuss / lecture / convert / speak to like minded thinkers?

You know as well as I do that sometimes I enjoy nothing more than a good old thunder. And besides, I've found some of us have had a tendency to let go full throttle regardless of my own temperament.